Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Spinning out of domestic policy

This article is quite bloated. I would like to propose spinning out the domestic policy section into its own article, and leaving behind a summary that would essentially be a version of the new article's introduction. I would suggest Domestic policy of Donald Trump would be a good title. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - really the only solution is to reduce the bloat. This wouldn’t be the presidency article if such a major part (half the job) were removed in favour of — what? The bloat ? Make the content major actions and events of the presidency, not tidbits of miscellany and trivia. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

p.s. shorten the run-on (and on and on) writing would do, especially condense where it is supposed to be a summary of a something that has a separate article. Also, whole subsubsections could be dropped. In particular, drop the lowest or least parts of many-part sections ... here’s a couple examples of the dubious ones that look like candidates

• Leadership style/Judicial criticism - per WP:CRITICISM and it’s not a leadership style nor a Presidential action or event, it’s just a couple paras of quotefarm of no note.
• Ethics/Allegations of retribution - seems just an OR list of opinion as to motive, duplicates some of the Cabinet/notable departures then guess the rest are the not-notable ones, not actual court case allegations or anything else significant.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Got it. So we get rid of anything that looks like criticism, right? That's obviously a non-starter, Mark. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hardly, you’re the one proposing to split off most of the criticisms and the most important ones, along with the most important subtopics - removing environment, healthcare, immigration, white nationalism, etcetera. I instead say Prioritize to the most on-topic aspects, criticism or not, do not eliminate the largest and most important part of the article. If a part isn’t one of the more noted, then by WEIGHT it is not DUE, but largely it’s just the writing here rants on and on redundantly. Reduce bloatedly written parts including criticism, particularly sections duplicative of other articles, and eliminate entirely the trivial parts including criticisms. The proposal suggesting to split off one the two major parts of topic Presidency articles specifically because the article is too big is just misguided. Either we thin the article to the most on-topic parts or if it stays just poorly filtered and no longer has the major parts of the Presidency we should be honest change the title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

p.s. a couple of examples for bloated writing to trim ...

• shorten the Personnel/Cabinet/Notable departures/Firing of Comey - the Personnel is 4 screens long, too much, and here there’s a separate article summarized in the first three paras - the extra two relating the number of memos Comey wrote then quotes from a Trump interview are too low details for here.
• shorten the Domestic Policy/Economy - the events are out of order and at 4 screens and pointing at 4 other articles should be able to trim... e.g. cut out a 2018 infrastructure that went nowhere is para 2 and a DOJ announcement in 2017 is para 3, both were given more prominence than the tax cut and jobs act. Cut para 6 vagueness about during his tenure Trump sought to intervene, given prominence above the trade war ... so he tweeted, but if it wasn’t ACTUAL intervening, skip it. And... There’s just a lot of blah blah blah parts here.
• shorten the Domestic Policy/Environment - three screens long supposedly summary of the separate article and doing a fairly horrible job of anything important about that. Instead this seems 2+ screens of things that did not make the cut into the Environmental article .... the Paris agreement is buried in second screen mid-para in a para about the White House changed websites ?!? Really going into too much about bureaucratic steps trivia how they did things or detailed quotes of a non-notable remark obscuring anything about what enviromental policy is and environmental actions done.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. The proposal is to spin out domestic policy, like was done for Bush and Reagan. Clinton and Obama had theirs broken down into several articles. So a simple oppose/support is all that was needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

False comparison. This proposal is to eliminate a key part of the presidency, that *all* such articles have, including the two you mention. Presidency of Barack Obama has a Domestic section and Presidency of George W. Bush has and Presidency of Bill Clinton has and yes back to Presidency of Ronald Reagan has. None of these are just a summary of the articles they show links to -- they are showing the most WEIGHT parts of Domestic Policy and are fully readable in themselves. It's not a solution to move the major subtopic in order to accommodate junk contrary to WEIGHT, to cut the meat so there's room for fat -- the only solution here is to eliminate the bloat. Get rid of the trivial parts of some sections and entire trivial sections as Just Not DUE for this level article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I recommend spinning out a new article on the Trump Administration and covid-19. It's suddenly the dominant issue of 2020 and yet (almost) did not exist in 2019. SO it's separable and of VERY high interest. Rjensen (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree..I thought there was one 2600:1702:2340:9470:3988:16FE:FB87:F432 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Rjensen Well, there's at least 11 articles specific to Coronavirus or Covid items, but they're all either technical or legal specific matters -- not political spin. It is after all a *world* pandemic, and the United States is just a small part of that, and the Trump Administration actions not particularly unusual in the crowd or affecting the world. Even within the U.S. a lot of what's going on seems individual behaviours and the corporate and state actions, so a Covid-19 and Trump-Administration would seem just part of even the Covid-19 and United States. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's just wrong. The United States has more cases than any other nation in the world by some considerable margin. The Trump administration's refusal to accept basic facts early on has put the US in the dire position it is now. The massive shrinking of the American economy has had a knock on effect with the rest of the world's economy. Trump's mishandling of COVID-19 is hugely consequential. All of these statements I have made can be backed up by reliable sources. There's plenty of material for a spin out article, although I still think it should be in the context of Trump's domestic policy overall. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I will add, [1] "The US has emerged as a global hotspot for the pandemic, a giant petri dish for the Sars-CoV-2 virus. As the death toll rises, Trump’s claims to global leadership have became more far-fetched." This has become an important and devastating issue for the U.S.. The U.S. is in big trouble right now. In any case, this is certainly related to current domestic policy and I'm sure this will be studied in history courses for years to come after a vaccine is available, and this is "officially" over. I'm thinking the U.S. is screwed for the rest of this year and probably somewhat into 2021.--- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support spin out article on "Domestic policy". There's plenty of material and plenty of RS. And it reduces the bloat of this article. Of course, there will be a summary summation in this article linked to the other. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose spinning out whole section, Support spinning out Trump adm's coronavirus response. I think we should start out by spinning out an article on the Trump administration's response to the coronavirus, which has long-term encyclopedic value and is too long to be covered within the Presidency of Donald Trump article in a comprehensive manner. As for spinning out the whole section, I oppose it strongly at the moment. I still think it's entirely feasible to trim the whole Presidency of Donald Trump article so that it's leaner and more concise, yet still covers all the noteworthy aspects of the administration. Since there might only be eight months of the administration (we'll know in 6 months time), I think it's worthwhile to keep the article a little too bloated at the moment, so that it'll be easier to properly trim it after the administration is over. As soon as there are numerous forks out there, it'll be harder and more unwieldy to write up one thorough yet lean Wikipedia article. So how about I try to do one major trimming session over the next 24 hrs (in the entire article), and then we decide whether to start spinning big sections in November (when we know more about the longevity of the administration)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Snooganssnoogans: I think the work you have done has helped a lot, thank you. I agree trimming is preferable to spinning out, but it still may be necessary if Trump gets another term. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Support Start a new article..his domestic policies are imploding..it`s just a matter of time before it happens anyway 2600:1702:2340:9470:91D1:14C5:4388:AAC2 (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

warnings by Administration officials against halting W.H.O. funding (to Pompeo), add?

Trump administration officials warned against cutting funding to the World Health Organization, saying it would erode America’s global standing, threaten U.S. lives, and hurt global efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic.

The internal memo, written by U.S. officials and addressed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, cautioned that pausing funding to the organization would “impact over $50 million in U.S. assistance planned to help host governments address urgent needs and risks undermining the U.S. narrative of a long-standing health leader, ceding ground to the (People’s Republic of China).”

The WHO, meanwhile, responded to Trump’s threat to cutoff U.S. funding and accusation that it was “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus,” saying “We alerted the world on January the 5th. Systems around the world, including the U.S., began to activate their incident management systems on January the 6th. And […] we’ve produced multiple updates […] on the developing situation — and that is what it was, a developing situation.”

• https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-administration-officials-warned-against-halting-funding-to-who-leaked-memo-shows
• https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/15/835179442/we-alerted-the-world-to-coronavirus-on-jan-5-who-says-in-response-to-u-s
• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/health/WHO-Trump-coronavirus.html

See China and the United Nations with United States and the United Nations. X1\ (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Skip - not really a Presidential act or event. Just a partial of internal discussions with it unclear if it even was part of the discussions or how, and definitely not the actual official release nor an action taken. The speculations of potential impact are just hypothetical. Should instead go for the actual responses to events or after-event statements of actual impact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• The topic of the article is the presidency, not "things Donald Trump did during his presidency". SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• ??? Umm... what President Donald Trump does actually is kind of the topic and content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not just him personally. Is he building the Wall himself in the hot sun? Cheers SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• If he did, that would be BLP as well as Presidency -- but in this case, we're talking something not part of the [[Presidency}} - neither a major act nor event, just a partial on something that seems to never have even risen into high level discussions. We don't report the opinions of janitors as part of the Presidency, even when it is in the White House. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include This extremely important..it is critical to his or whoever is controlling him`s presidency 2600:1702:2340:9470:78EF:646E:A915:5344 (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Citizen Unrest

Is there a section regarding the protests in this article ? If not there should be 2600:1702:2340:9470:4408:1A12:9A12:309E (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Never mind..I see it 2600:1702:2340:9470:D928:9254:9253:635E (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

How about a little less bias,, Trump did many positive things, such as:* Trump recently signed 3 bills to benefit Native people. One gives compensation to the Spokane tribe for loss of their lands in the mid-1900s, one funds Native language programs, and the third gives federal recognition to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians in Montana.

• Trump finalized the creation of Space Force as our 6th Military branch.
• Trump signed a law to make cruelty to animals a federal felony so that animal abusers face tougher consequences.????
• Violent crime has fallen every year he’s been in office after rising during the 2 years before he was elected.
• Trump signed a bill making CBD and Hemp legal.????
• Trump’s EPA gave $100 million to fix the water infrastructure problem in Flint, Michigan.
• Under Trump’s leadership, in 2018 the U.S. surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s largest producer of crude oil.
• Trump signed a law ending the gag orders on Pharmacists that prevented them from sharing money-saving information.
• Trump signed the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (FOSTA), which includes the “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” (SESTA) which both give law enforcement and victims new tools to fight sex trafficking.????
• Trump signed a bill to require airports to provide spaces for breastfeeding Moms.
• The 25% lowest-paid Americans enjoyed a 4.5% income boost in November 2019, which outpaces a 2.9% gain in earnings for the country's highest-paid workers.
• Low-wage workers are benefiting from higher minimum wages and from corporations that are increasing entry-level pay.
• Trump signed the biggest wilderness protection & conservation bill in a decade and designated 375,000 acres as protected land.
• Trump signed the Save our Seas Act which funds $10 million per year to clean tons of plastic & garbage from the ocean.????
• He signed a bill this year allowing some drug imports from Canada so that prescription prices would go down.
• Trump signed an executive order this year that forces all healthcare providers to disclose the cost of their services so that Americans can comparison shop and know how much less providers charge insurance companies.
• When signing that bill he said no American should be blindsided by bills for medical services they never agreed to in advance.
• Hospitals will now be required to post their standard charges for services, which include the discounted price a hospital is willing to accept.
• In the eight years prior to President Trump’s inauguration, prescription drug prices increased by an average of 3.6% per year. Under Trump, drug prices have seen year-over-year declines in nine of the last ten months, with a 1.1% drop as of the most recent month.
• He created a White House VA Hotline to help veterans and principally staffed it with veterans and direct family members of veterans.????
• VA employees are being held accountable for poor performance, with more than 4,000 VA employees removed, demoted, and suspended so far.
• Issued an executive order requiring the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs to submit a joint plan to provide veterans access to access to mental health treatment as they transition to civilian life.
• Because of a bill signed and championed by Trump, In 2020, most federal employees will see their pay increase by an average of 3.1% — the largest raise in more than 10 years.
• Trump signed into a law up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave for millions of federal workers.
• Trump administration will provide HIV prevention drugs for free to 200,000 uninsured patients per year for 11 years.????
• All-time record sales during the 2019 holidays.
• Trump signed an order allowing small businesses to group together when buying insurance to get a better price????
• President Trump signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act that provides funding for states to develop maternal mortality reviews to better understand maternal complications and identify solutions & largely focuses on reducing the higher mortality rates for Black Americans.
• In 2018, President Trump signed the groundbreaking First Step Act, a criminal justice bill which enacted reforms that make our justice system fairer and help former inmates successfully return to society.
• The First Step Act’s reforms addressed inequities in sentencing laws that disproportionately harmed Black Americans and reformed mandatory minimums that created unfair outcomes.????
• The First Step Act expanded judicial discretion in sentencing of non-violent crimes.
• Over 90% of those benefitting from the retroactive sentencing reductions in the First Step Act are Black Americans.
• The First Step Act provides rehabilitative programs to inmates, helping them successfully rejoin society and not return to crime.
• Trump increased funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) by more than 14%.????
• Trump signed legislation forgiving Hurricane Katrina debt that threatened HBCUs.
• New single-family home sales are up 31.6% in October 2019 compared to just one year ago.
• Made HBCUs a priority by creating the position of executive director of the White House Initiative on HBCUs.
• Trump received the Bipartisan Justice Award at a historically black college for his criminal justice reform accomplishments.
• The poverty rate fell to a 17-year low of 11.8% under the Trump administration as a result of a jobs-rich environment.????
• Poverty rates for African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans have reached their lowest levels since the U.S. began collecting such data.
• President Trump signed a bill that creates five national monuments, expands several national parks, adds 1.3 million acres of wilderness, and permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
• Trump’s USDA committed $124 Million to rebuild rural water infrastructure.????
• Consumer confidence & small business confidence is at an all time high.
• More than 7 million jobs created since election.
• More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
• More than 400,000 manufacturing jobs created since his election.
• Trump appointed 5 openly gay ambassadors.????
• Trump ordered Ric Grenell, his openly gay ambassador to Germany, to lead a global initiative to decriminalize homosexuality across the globe.
• Through Trump’s Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team (ACTeam) initiative, Federal law enforcement more than doubled convictions of human traffickers and increased the number of defendants charged by 75% in ACTeam districts.
• In 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismantled an organization that was the internet’s leading source of prostitution-related advertisements resulting in sex trafficking.
• Trump’s OMB published new anti-trafficking guidance for government procurement officials to more effectively combat human trafficking.
• Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations arrested 1,588 criminals associated with Human Trafficking.
• Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services provided funding to support the National Human Trafficking Hotline to identify perpetrators and give victims the help they need.
• The hotline identified 16,862 potential human trafficking cases.
• Trump’s DOJ provided grants to organizations that support human trafficking victims – serving nearly 9,000 cases from July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018.????
• The Department of Homeland Security has hired more victim assistance specialists, helping victims get resources and support.
• President Trump has called on Congress to pass school choice legislation so that no child is trapped in a failing school because of his or her zip code.????
• The President signed funding legislation in September 2018 that increased funding for school choice by $42 million.
• The tax cuts signed into law by President Trump promote school choice by allowing families to use 529 college savings plans for elementary and secondary education.????
• Under his leadership ISIS has lost most of their territory and been largely dismantled.
• ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi was killed.
• Signed the first Perkins CTE reauthorization since 2006, authorizing more than $1 billion for states each year to fund vocational and career education programs.
• Executive order expanding apprenticeship opportunities for students and workers.
• Trump issued an Executive Order prohibiting the U.S. government from discriminating against Christians or punishing expressions of faith.
• Signed an executive order that allows the government to withhold money from college campuses deemed to be anti-Semitic and who fail to combat anti-Semitism.
• President Trump ordered a halt to U.S. tax money going to international organizations that fund or perform abortions.
• Trump imposed sanctions on the socialists in Venezuela who have killed their citizens.
• Finalized new trade agreement with South Korea.
• Made a deal with the European Union to increase U.S. energy exports to Europe.????
• Withdrew the U.S. from the job killing TPP deal.
• Secured $250 billion in new trade and investment deals in China and $12 billion in Vietnam.
• Okay’d up to $12 billion in aid for farmers affected by unfair trade retaliation.????
• Has had over a dozen US hostages freed, including those Obama could not get freed.
• Trump signed the Music Modernization Act, the biggest change to copyright law in decades.
• Trump secured Billions that will fund the building of a wall at our southern border.
• The Trump Administration is promoting second chance hiring to give former inmates the opportunity to live crime-free lives and find meaningful employment.
• Trump’s DOJ and the Board Of Prisons launched a new “Ready to Work Initiative” to help connect employers directly with former prisoners.????
• President Trump’s historic tax cut legislation included new Opportunity Zone Incentives to promote investment in low-income communities across the country.
• 8,764 communities across the country have been designated as Opportunity Zones.
• Opportunity Zones are expected to spur $100 billion in long-term private capital investment in economically distressed communities across the country.
• Trump directed the Education Secretary to end Common Core.??????????????????
• Trump signed the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund into law.
• Trump signed measure funding prevention programs for Veteran suicide.????
• Companies have brought back over a TRILLION dollars from overseas because of the TCJA bill that Trump signed.
• Manufacturing jobs are growing at the fastest rate in more than 30 years.
• Stock Market has reached record highs.
• Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
• African-American unemployment is at an all time low.
• Hispanic-American unemployment is at an all time low.
• Asian-American unemployment is at an all time low.
• Women’s unemployment rate is at a 65-year low.
• Youth unemployment is at a 50-year low.
• We have the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded.
• The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans.
• 95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future— the highest ever.
• As a result of the Republican tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.????
• Record number of regulations eliminated that hurt small businesses.
• Signed welfare reform requiring able-bodied adults who don’t have children to work or look for work if they’re on welfare.????
• Under Trump, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history.
• Reformed Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors 100’s of millions of $$$ this year alone.????
• Signed Right-To-Try legislation allowing terminally ill patients to try experimental treatment that wasn’t allowed before.
• Secured $6 billion in new funding to fight the opioid epidemic.????
• Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.????
• U.S. oil production recently reached all-time high so we are less dependent on oil from the Middle East.
• The U.S. is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
• NATO allies increased their defense spending because of his pressure campaign.
• Withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord in 2017 and that same year the U.S. still led the world by having the largest reduction in Carbon emissions.????
• Has his circuit court judge nominees being confirmed faster than any other new administration.
• Had his Supreme Court Justice’s Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh confirmed.
• Moved U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.????
• Agreed to a new trade deal with Mexico & Canada that will increase jobs here and $$$ coming in.
• Reached a breakthrough agreement with the E.U. to increase U.S. exports.
• Imposed tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and their chronically abusive trade practices, has agreed to a Part One trade deal with China.
• Signed legislation to improve the National Suicide Hotline.????
• Signed the most comprehensive childhood cancer legislation ever into law, which will advance childhood cancer research and improve treatments.
• The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law by Trump doubled the maximum amount of the child tax credit available to parents and lifted the income limits so more people could claim it.
• It also created a new tax credit for other dependents.
• In 2018, President Trump signed into law a $2.4 billion funding increase for the Child Care and Development Fund, providing a total of $8.1 billion to States to fund child care for low-income families.
• The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) signed into law by Trump provides a tax credit equal to 20-35% of child care expenses, $3,000 per child & $6,000 per family + Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) allow you to set aside up to $5,000 in pre-tax $ to use for child care.
• In 2019 President Donald Trump signed the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education and Support Act (CARES) into law which allocates $1.8 billion in funding over the next five years to help people with autism spectrum disorder and to help their families.????
• In 2019 President Trump signed into law two funding packages providing nearly $19 million in new funding for Lupus specific research and education programs, as well an additional $41.7 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the most Lupus funding EVER.
• Another upcoming accomplishment to add: In the next week or two Trump will be signing the first major anti-robocall law in decades called the TRACED Act (Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence.) Once it’s thelaw, the TRACED Act will extend the period of time the FCC has to catch & punish those who intentionally break telemarketing restrictions. The bill also requires voice service providers to develop a framework to verify calls are legitimate before they reach your phone.
• US stock market continually hits all-time record highs. 72.28.41.232 (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Seems more something for a “List of” article, and/or additions for the “Timeline of” articles. But I’m kind of curious where they got this list, presuming it’s a dub and not their own. It seems oddly to skip what I’d expect of the larger items (e.g. stock market surge started on his election, repeated records in 2017 & 2018 not just 2019, energy independence/gas prices lows, strong GDP, SCOTUS picks, more tax breaks, pro-business re regulations, respectful of religion, more on major trade deals USMCA etc, negotiations freed hostages....). And googling the language (of HBCU and Indians) got different lists like Facts about Trump that are Deadly for Democrats and TrumpTesters and rctx Joe Boteri etcetera; or blogs at Facebook or AARP ... Maybe echoes of some progenitor piece? Anyway, does anyone know where would this list trace to ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

World's view of Trump's coronavirus response

I'm adding this link (below) in case it is of use in this article or the biography article. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• "World looks on in horror as Trump flails over pandemic despite claims US leads way". This is the actual title.
• Trump administration is not "going in any direction the world wants to follow."
• "Across Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, views of the US handling of the coronavirus crisis are uniformly negative and range from horror through derision to sympathy. Donald Trump’s musings from the White House briefing room, particularly his thoughts on injecting disinfectant, have drawn the attention of the planet."
• "The US has emerged as a global hotspot for the pandemic, a giant petri dish for the Sars-CoV-2 virus."
• "As the death toll rises, Trump’s claims to global leadership have became more far-fetched. He told Republicans last week that he had had a round of phone calls with Angela Merkel, Shinzo Abe and other unnamed world leaders and insisted 'so many of them, almost all of them, I would say all of them' believe the US is leading the way."

---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC

• Not seeing it as a topic for here - seems not a major Presidency item. Anyway, a single ref isn’t good, to pick just that article gives WP:UNDUE weight to it. There’s obviously many many other different articles about U.S. handling by Canada and overseas press with varying approaches and mixed positive/negative, mostly individual topics and a few overviews. For example, the BBC Coronavirus response: Things the US has got right - and got wrong. And things also vary by what date you’re looking at - for example the EU was surprised when the US put in travel restrictions Coronavirus: EU condemns Trump travel ban on 26 European countries. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It is my belief that this issue is about watching the respect and authority that we have long held rapidly slipping away and it certainly is a topic for the Trump presidency article. Gandydancer (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Stephen Walt says: "“The Trump administration’s self-centred, haphazard, and tone-deaf response [to Covid-19] will end up costing Americans trillions of dollars and thousands of otherwise preventable deaths. But that’s not the only damage the United States will suffer. Far from ‘making America great again’, this epic policy failure will further tarnish [its] reputation as a country that knows how to do things effectively. This adverse shift could be permanent..." [2] Gandydancer (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Peter Wehner says that four years ago he wrote, "Mr. Trump’s virulent combination of ignorance, emotional instability, demagogy, solipsism and vindictiveness would do more than result in a failed presidency; it could very well lead to national catastrophe. The prospect of Donald Trump as commander in chief should send a chill down the spine of every American." He now says, "It took until the second half of Trump’s first term, but the crisis has arrived in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, and it’s hard to name a president who has been as overwhelmed by a crisis as the coronavirus has overwhelmed Donald Trump." [3] Gandydancer (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Spiegel International says: "The frustration in Berlin and Paris is great. Government sources in Berlin argue that Washington is definitively abandoning the idea of partnership-based cooperation. Trump’s battle against multilateralism has made it so that even formats like the G-7 are no longer working. It appears that the coronavirus is destroying the last vestiges of a world order." [4] Gandydancer (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• The Guardian "US's global reputation hits rock-bottom over Trump's coronavirus response" [5] Heiko Maas said,"[he hoped the crisis would force a fundamental US rethink about] “whether the ‘America first’ model really works" [...] “Hollowing out international connections comes at a high price." Gandydancer (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• CNN "Trump's chaotic strategy is accelerating US losses" [6] Gandydancer (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s honestly about time we get global views on this subject. I follow news internationally, and this is nearly all they’ve talked about for a few months regarding the United States. I’d recommend we get other language articles as well, as there are manifestly more of those than the few posted here that are adapted to a largely American and Anglophone audience. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is just a sample; there are more English articles. There is the funny video as well -- not that we'd use that. Gandydancer (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

CNN and The Guardian are not a representative sample of The People Of The World, any more than Fox or National Review (which none of you are referencing). News agencies represent the views of news agencies only. The assertions of a talking head do not constitute fact and such evaluations have no place in a Wikipedia article. If you want to include global views, include direct quotes from average people representing a variety of political leanings.Pcress (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It will end up being a major aspect of his presidency..possibly not to all americans but this article is about trump`s presidency not us attitudes towards trump 2600:1702:2340:9470:1C18:AF42:E8EC:3A7F (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

news agencies represent the reliable sources that Wikipedia depends upon. And yes Trump's actions of the last 2 weeks and last 2 months will bulk very large in the long=term history of his administration, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What is this "false" that you speak of??

The first paragraph in this article states that "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." Well, duh. This statement describes every single politician since Og, chief of the cave, yet it is stated here as though Trump introduced the very notion. Compare the sycophantic cooing of the Wikipedia article Barack Obama's presidency--no mention in the entire article of a single falsehood. Is that because Barack Obama is actually the glorious Messiah sent from heaven, and never misled anyone in his campaign or eight years in office, or because Wikipedia's NPOV is a fantasy? It is sickeningly obvious that the contributors to Obama's page are careful to spin anything that makes him look less than angelic. No mention of the "Fast and Furious" program where Obama authorized the sale of confiscated firearms to drug smugglers. No mention of the fact that Obama repeatedly attempted to mislead the public into thinking that a YouTube video inspired the 2012 Benghazi attack. No mention of "If you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan" which Obama repeated 31 times in several variants. You want to call out Trump's lies, fine, call them out. A lie is a lie. But by simultaneously whitewashing other politicians, Wikipedia loses all credibility. Trump lies. Johnson lies. Steinmeier lies. Ramaphosa lies. Putin lies. Wikipedia has articles on all of these politicians, yet only one mentions deception. Until total honesty is the norm for politicians, accusing only one of dishonesty is itself blatantly dishonest.Pcress (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you prefer this article not refer to Trump's dishonesty or do you want the other articles you cite to refer to those politicians as dishonest? SMP0328. (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fair to provide illustrations of Trump's dishonesty. Facts are facts. But if that is going to be the case, treat all government officials with that scrutiny. I'm not going to complain on every other talk page that they aren't treating Obama fairly, or Putin, or Castro, or Xi. Even the page on Adolf Hitler--Adolf friggin Hitler!!--a search for the words "false," "mislead," "untrue," or "deceive" reveals no results, and the word "lies" is only in the English translation of the working title of his book! It would appear that WP prefers not to mention politician dishonesty, even when it is well-known, perhaps because politician dishonesty, of any stripe, is well-known and unremarkable. Politicians lie, and politicians wear shoes, and politicians live in houses. So what, everyone knows it and nobody cares. If WP's view is that politician lies are and unremarkable vice, then Trump's dishonesty is also unremarkable and does not warrant mention. If other government officials around the world and throughout history get a free pass to lie, cheat, and steal, and Wikipedia is going to whitewash their history...well, then WP should also whitewash Trump's. Unfortunately for the many opponents of Trump on WP, that's what NPOV means.Pcress (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pcress: This is not a forum to opine extensively on other politicians. Reliable sources overwhelmingly make note that Trump peddles in falsehoods frequently. This, according to WP:RS, is far above and beyond the typical politician's lies. We must note that prominently in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right, of course; this is not a place to opine on other politicians. In fact, Wikipedia is not the place to opine on any politicians, or on anything at all. Wikipedia is a platform for facts, not opinions. So I think we can agree that the pages for other government officials should factually detail their well-documented lies as this page does? That way readers have a basis for comparison.Pcress (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Iff sources clearly indicate they are notable. I am unaware of any at the moments. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This just shows the hypocrisy of Wikipedia editors, they ask for others to provide "Reliable Sources" but then don't provide it themselves and even protect it from so called "Vandalism" Vivek65420 (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I find that there are may places in the article where you can find obvious political leanings on behalf of the editors. There are also quite a few outright lies in the text as well. Then of course the Wikipedia editors allow blanket statements like "He lies all the time" without any examples. When they do give an example, they cite politically motivated "fact checkers" as their sources. The liberal leaning Wikipedia editors are doing a real disgrace to this website. How can you expect people to trust anything written on this page?

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

In the subsection "False and misleading statements", there is an additional "via" (As president, Trump has made about 20% of his false and misleading claims via via Twitter"). Fix pls! :) SeethingHatred (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch. SMP0328. (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

2600:1702:2340:9470:1CA:85A1:55D6:DE6A (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hypocrisy of "Reliable Sources"

Where are the sources for his "misleading comments" and what about the names or credibility of these so called self-proclaimed "Fact-Checkers"? Only personal opinions are expressed in this article not facts and it is certainly not neutral. Vivek65420 (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, without specifying a particular passage and source from that section, this just comes across as a rant. El_C 05:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Vivek65420 - I think you may be talking about the two lines in LEAD that vaguely mention of "misleading comments" and "fact-checkers". The one fact-checker the body seems to show is Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post. There are of course other opinion columns on the 'fact-checkers' model out there, and the Fact-checking varies from whether it is from the typically liberal Washington Post or conservative Fox News, or foreign BBC and such. There are also some known issues with fact-checkers, and mixed credibility - . The LEAD did some creative writing for those lines -- they're not strongly supported in the body. And for the body statement "media commentators and fact-checkers have described the rate of his falsehoods as unprecedented", the word is not seen in the cite there -- so I've tagged it as cite needed. Perhaps it is intended as a loose paraphrase, but the line is stated as something said and not as a paraphrase. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

The last paragraph in the introduction is heavily politically slanted and filled with misinformation/outright lies. Either rewrite it or delete it:

"The final year of Trump's current term was marked by a recession that began in February 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic (which resulted in widespread lockdowns), both of which combined to wipe out most of the economic gains made under both his and Obama's administrations. Trump's initially slow response to the virus, promotion of misinformation, and previous dissolving of task forces meant to deal with pandemics, was criticized. During the George Floyd protests, Trump was widely criticized for having peaceful protesters on Lafayette Square attacked with chemical irritants and pepper balls to clear a path for him for a photo-op at St. John's Church. "

Specific criticisms: 1. The COVID-19 pandemic caused the recession --- flip the order of those two in the first sentence to make that clear, otherwise they sound like unrelated events.

2. "Trump's initially slow response to the virus, promotion of misinformation, and previous dissolving of task forces meant to deal with pandemics" How can you even allow that to be printed here? Not only is this completely false, but it is clearly politically motivated. The US was one of the first countries to ban air travel from China ---- furthermore the democrats were complaining that his reaction was racist at the time. The accusation that he has promoted misinformation is also absurd and clearly politically motivated.

3. "During the George Floyd protests, Trump was widely criticized for having peaceful protesters on Lafayette Square attacked with chemical irritants and pepper balls to clear a path for him for a photo-op at St. John's Church."

This is fake news from CNN. The protestors were not peaceful and had recently burned down a historical church nearby. The accusation that this was for a photo op is laughable.

How can you allow this kind of politically charged crap on Wikipedia. It is pathetic. Do the right thing and either remove it or report history truthfully. 71.112.217.6 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Removing sourced content because you don't like it is censorship. No. 2 and 3 are well reported in multiple reliable sources, even outside of the USA, so even if you have a problem with CNN it still can be included. Futhermore, calling this "politically charged crap" sounds more like you're here to promote an agenda than to build a neutral encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:RandomCanadian IP was correct about #1 that the order should be COVID led to recession, and that’s now changed to “The final year of Trump's current term was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic (which resulted in widespread lockdowns), which led to a recession which wiped out most of the economic gains made under both his and Obama's administrations.“. I’ll work on the grammar further. And there’s already been censorship of any positive view - you don’t see the equivalent ‘the first year of his presidency was marked by’ being a sharp rise in the stock market and tax cuts, both of which were widely reported in RS - instead you see the rise credited to Obama and the tax cut expressed as a rise in deficit. I’ll also work on the #2 and #3 — this is supposed to be WP:LEAD, not a 6-screen long laundry list of criticisms. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have cut almost all of that out as much seemed SPECULATIVE or jumping the gun by editing LEAD but lacking matching content in BODY, and some seemed UNDUE.

The final year of Trump's current term was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic which led to a recession which wiped out most of the economic gains made under both his and Obama's administrations. Trump's initially slow response to the virus, promotion of misinformation, and previous dissolving of task forces meant to deal with pandemics, was criticized. During the George Floyd protests, Trump was widely criticized for having peaceful protesters on Lafayette Square attacked with chemical irritants and pepper balls to clear a path for him for a photo-op at St. John's Church.

• Kept COVID-19 as there is a screen or two so it's plausible to show in top.
• Struck "wiped out most of the economic gains made under both his and Obama" as CRYSTAL currently false - GDP is still higher than 2016.
• Struck out "recession" entirely per WP:LEAD - this isn't a big part of the article, and actually it's only (by some definitions) become a recession this week. Just TOOSOON to declare it wiping out gains back to Obama.
• Struck out list of COVID complaints re response/misinformwtion/task force - it could be rephrased and less awkwardly verbose, but just too much detail for lead. These details seem 1-lines within the para, UNDUE for a LEAD line.
• Dropped detail of the church walk - there is a section, but these details are within the lines of the short paragraph so UNDUE for the LEAD. Don't think any mention of the church walk remains - if the lead just mentions 'had a photo-op' it would have no significance.

The final year of Trump's current term was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and the George Floyd protests.

• Dropped wikilink to George Floyd. Think it *should be* mentioned but it's just not really covered in the body. There is only a tiny section and it's about the church walk not about Floyd or police reforms. It seems to me the effect on Presidency is more about George Floyd reactions and changing norms for police action than about the church walk but that's not what the article has so not what is supported for LEAD.

The final year of Trump's current term was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead should clearly cover (i) the administration's response to COVID-19, (ii) that a recession happened in 2020, and (iii) that the administration teargassed and attacked peaceful protestors so that Trump could cut a campaign ad. All events are highly notable and will obviously have long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Not per the guideline WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE - and some seems WP:TOOSOON. While it may be believed important, the recession just officially began last week so there's not much out on it and the extent is unknown. And I'm a bit appalled that the article did not reflect George Floyd and Black Lives Matter got zero content but instead chose snarking about a one-time photo op. So I couldn't mention Floyd as it's not in the body and it seemed UNDUE to give a quarter-screen of snark anything more than a part of a sentence and to say 'had a photo op' makes no sense so left nothing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Snoogans..these three events along with the unspeakable crime will in the end be what he`s remembered for...trump is president not was..should be in the LEAD 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead should obviously cover that a recession started in Feb 2020

The editor MarkBassett removed that blatantly lead-worthy content from the lead. It should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Recession" is a broad label, easily misunderstood. I think those bits and bytes could be better spent elaborating on the structural imbalances and diversions of resources that have been promoted throughout the presidency. Maybe Markbassett can help craft some additional text on income distribution, deregulation, environmental and housing controversies, etc. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be in the lead..the economy seems to be what people care about..I wasn`t aware that the meaning of the word recession with regard to the economy was particularly ambiguous..it`s a common term understood by most 2600:1702:2340:9470:E464:AE25:80FC:8AF7 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not significant amount of article so not in lead. Not in article because it was false. Snoo did not tag it as 15 June edit or that this was already discussed in the section Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020. Snoo also did not mention the edit summary said “incorrect/SPECULATION about recession size”. The claim was that a COVID caused recession “wiped out most of the economic gains made under both his and Obama's administration”. Nope, the GDP is still far above 2016, let alone back into most of Obama’s 2009-2017. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Obama is not president..Millions of people are unemployed...businesses are closing...people are getting evicted from their homes..how is this not a recession ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:1CA:85A1:55D6:DE6A (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Don’t be silly. This section ignored discussion already happened two weeks prior just to footstamp and give fact-free and reference free complaining.

And the edit was silly then. The edit that was deleted was a bit of LEAD posturing — something not in the body or cited, and making an evidently false exaggeration/speculation that most of Obama’s era was erased as well as Trump. Fails V, LEAD, and just a vague blurb making a clear misportrayal.

The recession (officially so just a couple days before that edit) exists but the edit in question was a false portrayal exaggeration/speculation of it’s size. The measures of a recession are typically GDP, but notes also go to income, employment, manufacturing, and sales. It’s TOOSOON in the recession to really be saying much about size of the moving event, but anything other than GDP would need to be explicit about what measure it’s talking about. And thus far, GDP, income, manufacturing, and sales have been down only slightly as the support bills have kept the unemployment from having much impact. Stay tuned, and do body edits first. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said..comrade..massive unemployment..where I live for the most part people are doing what they are supposed to..staying home..wearing masks..etc..what we have to show for it is boarded up stores and increased homelessness...everyone I know is starving..when this started even republicans were talking depression 2600:1702:2340:9470:9A2:CFFD:AFB1:63A4 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

How a history textbook would describe 2020 so far

I recommend "How a History Textbook Would Describe 2020 So Far" by history textbook author James West Davidson online here. Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? SMP0328. (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It strongly suggests what professional historians are identifying as the major Trump roles in 2020. This article will reflect those views (after they appear in scholarly form.) Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree 107.217.84.95 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it too soon for such a book? SMP0328. (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

yes July 2020 is too soon--but i'd say a bunch of scholars are now at work and will send their manuscript to the publisher in late 2020 to appear in early 2021. Rjensen (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Meh Unfinished yes, and from context I would think it a while before this chapter might go in -- it is after all still 'recent events' not 'history', and mentions Chapter 34 where the 2018 book goes up to maybe chapter 32? So far though it seems like a poor "first draft", unlikely to gain professional repute without better research than this and lots less slanting. Wrong dollar amounts, bad chronology, goes into things that didn't actually matter, skips some that did; links are mostly to NYT criticisms and a couple highlighted self-references of Atlantic to Atlantic. No depth -- no perspective of historical forces or different groups and motivations or nuance to matters. But then again, there are a lot of iffy textbooks written, and the links maybe mean there's a ready market for it in NYC schools. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

“The final year of Trump’s presidency was marked by the Covid pandemic.” Please expand this trite and uninformative paragraph

This “paragraph” is hardly befitting of a middle school newspaper, let alone an encyclopedia which proclaims itself the world’s source of knowledge.

I suggest an expansion along the following lines:

“Trump’s handling of the crisis has earned widespread international condemnation and is disapproved by 2/3 of Americans. (Placeholder source, easily obtained.) According to critics, Trump’s botched response to the virus has led to hundreds of thousands of U.S. and worldwide deaths, sunk the economy into even deeper depression, and led to mass exodus from the United States. Trump has attempted to stifle criticism by attacking his own public health officials as “often wrong.”” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.199.188 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Is marked not was..his presidency is not over or is the pandemic 2000:1702:2340:9470:E8B9:764D:AE19:DFE7 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Very silly soapboxing rant. Proposing script of solely negatives and disinformation is inappropriate per WP:NPOV and seems self-admitted WP:OR by saying will find source later. WP is supposed to simply convey all views in RS, in proportion to WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not necessarily the last year of his presidency 2600:1702:2340:9470:61E0:10DA:3374:74A (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So true. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I was more looking at the claim that his critics have been saying there is a mass exodus, a depression was underway before this, or that deaths in the US are already in the hundreds of thousands. All of those seem clearly false and also do not seem typical of the critics. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Recession in the lead

Should the lead briefly mention that Trump's presidency was marked by a recession (starting Feb 2020)? For example, should the bolded part be included in this sentence?: "The final year of Trump's current term was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and a recession."

Context:[7][8][9] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support It`s going to get worse...is not was 2600:1702:2340:9470:9A2:CFFD:AFB1:63A4 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Not a fan of self-referencing Wikipedia in the references section, though. Maybe this source instead? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!}

References

• Support, since there's extensive sourcing indicating that it is a major event, but we should use sources that actually mention it in the specific context of its significance for the Trump presidency, like these: [10][11][12]. --Aquillion (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – I wouldn’t add it as written, but it should definitely be mentioned. I think it should be made clear that this recession is part of the COVID-19 crisis. Perhaps something like:

"The final year of Trump's current term was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and a related recession."

Regardless of whether or not that’s done, I think it would be a good idea to add a piped link to Coronavirus recession#United States on the word “recession.” — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 09:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but if it does go in the lead, it should tell why, e.g. ""The final year of Trump's term has been marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and a the most precipitous recession since the 1929 stock market crash." My reservation about this is that "recession" is used to label an endogenous economic contraction or what's colloqually called the business cycle. The current situation doesn't fit easily into that label or usage. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support mention of recession in lead section with (per Aquillion) good sources expressly discussing it in the context of the Trump administration. The specific wording can be worked out in the ordinary course of editing, but I think it should be pretty uncontroversial that we need some mention of the recession in the lead. I do think it would be helpful in the lead to give some idea of when the recession began (Feb. 2020) and its significant scope. Neutrality^talk 17:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead should be a summary of the article. Since the article does not go into this other than a single sentence, should not be included in the lead until the rest of the article is changed. Galestar (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The wording should be explicit that the recession was a direct result of the pandemic. TFD (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - give this recentism a month or two to develop and meanwhile remember this is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS. It is only a single line in the body, so would not be appropriate to put in article summary per WP:LEAD. It would be WP:UNDUE prominence as it is relatively low WP:WEIGHT, perhaps as it is just recently met the definition and is still developing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Galestar I understand that if it`s in the lead it needs to be elaborated in the article..which begs the question why isn`t it in the article ? If it already is it should be in the lead and more importantly elaborated on..either way it should be in the article 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sort of undecided but leaning toward including "a brief mention" of the 2020 recession. In early June, several RS reported on the 'official recession.' From CNN "It's official: The recession began in February."[13] From New York Times: "The U.S. Entered a Recession in February." [14] From NPR: "It's Official: U.S. Economy Is In A Recession." [15] And I agree with SPECIFICO that if it's added it should explain what led to it so I would support adding the suggested sentence by SPECIFICO, or something very similar. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Opppose - Proposed addition doesn't provide sufficient context in regards to the recession's origins. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - A recession is a very significant occurrence that should be highlighted in any U.S. presidency article. Presidents' legacies are commonly associated with economic performance. To be fair and balanced, I suppose we could also add the recession was matched by a booming stock market. - MrX 🖋 10:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding the Trump Presidency, we also need to convey the fact that Trump took no action against the economic crisis, and that unprecedented rememdial policies were implemented at the initiative of the Federal Reserve and Congress. SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed 2600:1702:2340:9470:2874:EE79:5E55:D671 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: the result of this RfC is not very important until the lead is shortened to the point where our readers will actually read it. — Bilorv (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support, and if included, I would definitely favor language like "and a related recession". My support is weak since the recession, while undeniably a major occurrence, is mostly covered by mentioning the pandemic itself. I think the bigger problem with the sentence is that "marked by" is extremely passive voice and gives no indication of how Trump's presidency was marked. I'd say The last year of Trump's presidency was marked by a halting response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. would work much better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose since we're starting to recreate the entire body of the article in the lead. There's one sentence on the recession in the body and to then put one sentence in the lead is not consistent with the purpose of a lead, which is a summary of the main points of the article. That said, I think this would be appropriate at some point in the future. Chetsford (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: It doesn't really matter; COVID-19 caused a recession everywhere, so that is automatically understood. At the same time, there's nothing in the way of putting it - just that it seems unnecessary to me. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment it does matter..that is a huge leap of faith 107.217.84.95 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - though how the recession and the pandemic should be linked is less clear. The jury is probably still out on how much the relationship is co-incidence and how much causality, so, on reflection the two should probably NOT be explicitly linked unless sources do. It will be obvious to most readers that there is SOME relationship, even if noone is clear at present what that relationship is.Pincrete (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC) … ps I endorse those who say that the body should contain an expanded form of the lead's 'mention'.Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's recentism and if Trump isn't reelected, then the recession won't be "on him." Like the 2008 finance crisis didn't mark George Bush's presidency. ImTheIP (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not to you..I became homeless 2600:1702:2340:9470:E8B9:764D:AE19:DFE7 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Right now. It is WP:TOOSOON. Possibly in the future. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It is obvious we are in a recession..It`s naïve to believe it`s going to end before November...Why do you believe that ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:CDB:C24F:8170:227F (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As in six months living in a tent homeless btw..than two years in roach coaches..what do you think Bush`s legacy will be ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:CDB:C24F:8170:227F (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per WP:TOOSOON and WP:DEADLINE. This is my first time participating in an RfC, and I'm probably missing a whole bunch of stuff, but even though it's indisputable we're in a recession right now, my gut tells me we should wait. I'm sure other comments have better explanations for why. The various comments, to me, emanate a sense of urgency, like we must decide soon. I'd just like to remind everyone that there's no deadline. Bowler the Carmine (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose as in WP:TOOSOON. An indicator of when to consider adding is when Covid-19 pandemic is over. Manabimasu (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I think it kinda has to be in there because it ended the longest expansion on records since 1857 and some readers may not be old enough to remember when there wasn't an expansion. soibangla (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is one of the worst leads I have read on a major page. It is already overbloated. We should be removing info or condensing it rather than adding more. AIRcorn (talk)

Suggested edit to this page

Many people seem unaware that President Trump's current term has a fixed end date.

I feel it is important that there should be some clarification about this (for any sitting president).

For example, the article states

January 20, 2017 – present

This is misleading, as if it's like a person's life.

Granted, he could be reflected, or he could die before it ends, but barring those, the term has a fixed end date.

I propose something like:

Current term: January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021

If he's reelected, it could say First term: January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021 Current term: January 20, 2020 – January 20, 2024 Uncertain outcome (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is something that should be done after the election. Putting in the "Current term" now could be taken to mean Wikipedia is saying that Trump will not be reelected. In a little over three months we will know which way to edit this article regarding time in office. SMP0328. (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

this is his current term..one could say " term " but the other is more accurate..it is possibly he could keep his job..current term is neutral..as is ambiguous..wikipedia is not a newspaper..if he strokes out tomorrow it is possible that it doesn`t get changed for a few days although unlikely 2600:1702:2340:9470:9:D8AF:49D3:724B (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

His term in office is not January 20, 2017 - January 20, 2021. That is his scheduled term in office. His actual term is from inauguration until the current moment. To put that end date in the infobox is to make the prediction that not he will actually reach that date. Worse than that, it would be making the prediction that he will not be reelected. We cannot make either of those predictions. The current form is the correct one. --Khajidha (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

PS - either version would be incorrect for some period of time if "he strokes out tomorrow", so the change is not an improvement on that score either. --Khajidha (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

I'm sure it comes as No surprise to anyone "Here" But this is so Obviously written and Edited by an EXTREME TDS sufferer.

But of course, being a Private Company, You have no Legal Requirement to be Honest or Fair.

Lucky you 2605:E000:121D:8B32:A120:3C6:CE72:8159 (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closing edit request as there is no specific edit requested) – Thjarkur (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit should be reverted

because the stated reason, that Trump's 2020 claim is not mentioned in the removed text, is irrelevant. The removal of this content fundamentally alters the meaning in a misleading way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&curid=52231341&diff=978276215&oldid=978273451

soibangla (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it should not, and you should read WP:OR before making any more of these edits- it should be obvious that an editor can't uses sources from 2017-2019 to support something regarding a 2020 speech. Trying to reconnect (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed because articles are not supposed to report conclusions reached by editors, per WP:SYN, but only those reached in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The removed content of ”the industry steadily recovered to reach record sales in 2015 and 2016, before sales declined in 2017 and 2019“ is neither OR nor SYNTH. Cited LA Times said about 2016 “beating 2015’s record“ (thus supporting “record sales in 2015 and 2016”) and “It was the seventh consecutive year of year-over-year sales gains, an unprecedented string“ (thus supporting ”steadily recovered”) and cited USA Today said about 2017 “The U.S. auto industry's seven-year sales streak has come to an end,” while cited CNBC said 2019 “US auto sales fall in 2019” (thus supporting “sales declined in 2017 and 2019.”)Thus the removed content is fully supported by multiple reliable secondary sources and should be restored. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A 2016 or 2019 statement can't be related to a 2020 speech. That should be obvious . YOU are the one making the connection - taking an old article and using it to rebut a claim made in 2020. That is original research which is not allowed. Trying to reconnect (talk)

Citing multiple reliable secondary contemporaneous sources from the period in question in the statement “the last administration nearly killed the U.S. auto industry“ is neither OR nor SYNTH. Your repeated objection that A 2016 or 2019 statement can't be related to a 2020 speech is baseless, as reliable sources routinely do this and thus such content is routinely accepted here. You are effectively arguing that historical facts cannot be used to evaluate a current assertion. soibangla (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have a 2020 article that uses those figures, by all means use it. Otherwise, you need to read WP:OR and realize that what you are doing is not allowed. Reliable sources can do it, you as an editor can't. Trying to reconnect (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Cite OR language prohibiting the content. soibangla (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. " Trying to reconnect (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Except that's not what I did. As I explained above. the provided references support "”the industry steadily recovered to reach record sales in 2015 and 2016, before sales declined in 2017 and 2019." There is no impled conclusion, the references explicitly support the sentence. You have argued that a sentence of historical facts would be acceptable only if supported by a 2020 reference, but that it is not acceptable if supported by contemporaneous references, simply because the sentence refutes a statement made in 2020. I find such reasoning absurd, and I find the credibility of your argumentation is not strengthened by the fact that you simultaneously and specifically removed the word "falsely" from the edit, thereby fundamentally and incorrectly altering its meaning, and which Snooganssnoogans properly restored. soibangla (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

That is excatly what you did- you brought forth articles from 2016-2019 which you seem to think contradict a statement Trump made in 2020, in order to state or imply that his 2020 statement is false. Again: a reliable source can do that , and we can then reference that reliable source. But you, as an editor, can't. I removed the word "falsely " because as I see it, Trump's statement is one of opinion, which can't be "proven" or "falsified" - we can't state such things in Wikipedia's voice. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit on the above, re: opinion which can't be falsified or proven. One of the statements you relied on is ”Michigan autoworker jobs declined in 2019 for the first time since the Great Recession.“ - that is true, but at the same time, even after the decline, it was still higher than 2016 levels, as the Politifact chart shows. So a Trump hater could look at the trend and say "it's false! Trump saved nothing, 2019 declined over 2018!" while a Trump supporter would look at the exact same set of facts and say 'Trump saved the Michigan auto industry - each one of the Trump years (2017-2019) had higher automotive employment than even the best Obama year!' - Statements like "I saved the Auto industry" are statements of opinion, not facts, and we can't state in Wikipedia's voice that they are false or true. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I fully reject your interpretation, and "because as I see it" cannot be justification for overruling a reliable source, which further raises questions about the credibility of your argumentation, as it suggests your true rationale may be WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Read above. And the justification for removing the materiel was not "as I see it" but rather WP:OR. Read that policy carefully, as you don't seem to understand it, at all. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No, you just said I removed the word "falsely " because as I see it, Trump's statement is one of opinion not because you think it was OR. You're not strenghtening your argument this way. soibangla (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

while a Trump supporter would look at the exact same set of facts and interpret them incorrectly the way you just expressed it, because the jobs had increased each year for several years, before they decreased, regardless of whether the level remained higher than in 2016. The important metric is whether the increases continued or ended. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for illustrating above why we can't use "falsely" or "incorrectly". The facts are that jobs increased each year for many years until 2019, and then declined one year while remaining higher than 2016 levels. These are facts, and one can be "correct" or "incorrect" about them. Buy what I did is provide you with two interpretations of the importance of these facts, and these interpretations are opinion, not facts, and thus can't be "correct" or "incorrect". If the levels in 2019 are higher than in 2016 - does Trump deserve credit or not? It is matter of opinion. Your opinion is that what matters is the trend. Others may think that what matters the absolute value. So the former would think that a hypothetical continuous growth from 0 to 10 is better than growth from 0 to 1000 and then a decline to 890, and the latter would think otherwise. There is no "correct" or "incorrect' here - it is opinion that depends on interpretation of facts.Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You are conflating different things here, progressively making your argumentation less plausible. The "falsely" term does not apply to the jobs numbers, it applies to Trump's quote, which was expressed as a factual statement rather than a opinion, which is is your preferred interpretation, and which was found false by a reliable source, but you changed it because you seem to think you know better, all while accusing me of OR. LOL! Increasing jobs means growth, decreasing jobs means contraction. Growth is everything in economics, it's all about growth. We're done here. soibangla (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump's quote was "I saved the U.S. auto industry" - this is a statement of opinion, not fact. If 2019 is higher than 2016, did jobs increase or not? Was there growth in 2017-2109 vs. 2016? We are indeed done, two editors have told you that your edits are not appropriate, so don't reinstate them unless you get consensus. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The auto industry was saved from extinction by the US Treasury Dept., led by Steven Rattner in 2009. Not Trump, in fact. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That is yet another opinion, and we obviously can't use a Wikipedia article to rebut or support any claims. Trying to reconnect (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Please read up on the auto rescue. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

An opinion, based on a Wikipedia article. Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Want another one? An Inconvenient Truth: It Was George W. Bush Who Bailed Out the Automakers - from that well-known bastion of Republican thought, The New Yorker. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mask distribution plan scrapped

According to many sources (example), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) planned to distribute hundreds of millions of cloth face masks through the United States Postal Service (USPS) in April of this year. Health officials agree such a move, especially that early in the pandemic, would have sent a clear message of support for the wearing of masks, and likely would have saved many thousands of American lives. The Trump administration scrapped the idea. I would argue this was a significant decision of the Trump presidency that is hugely consequential; however, I am hesitant to add something to this article without consulting with fellow editors. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Split into 4 articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The presidency of Donald Trump has been the most unique in US history. It is one of the most eventful and intricately covered presidencies in American History. This article is currently 172 kB and growing. The parent article Donald Trump is 128+ kB. I think it is now necessary to split this article into 4:

• Presidency of Donald Trump (2017)
• Presidency of Donald Trump (2018)
• Presidency of Donald Trump (2019)
• Presidency of Donald Trump (2020)

This will allow us to solve two problems: split and summarize more content from the BIO, and make this article actually readable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm completely opposed to that. It is entirely feasible to engage in a careful and considerate trimming of content, while pushing some content to relevant sub-articles while summarizing it in the main article (this article). It is easier to do the trimming when the presidency is finished (January 2021), as content can be easily written in summary style, and on-going events can be summarized in past tense. Multiple forks will dilute effort and result in lower-quality articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You are more hopeful than I. We do not know the presidency is coming to an end but I am not opposed to waiting. Even if it did end, the likely event is more coverage in the ensuing state and federal litigation and criminal trials. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not know when the presidency is coming to an end, but it will probably be before the end of this Wikipedia so it is fine to wait. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to oppose this. Topical spinoffs by subject matter and targeted trimming make far more sense than a chronological arrangement which would probably increase WP:PROSELINE issues. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose it's far better to have topics in one place rather than split by year. We already have Timeline articles for per-year coverage. And there's plenty of low-hanging fruit to reduce the article size: do we really need "Presidential pardons and commutations" in this article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this as well. By splitting up the article into four years, it is complicating the overall basis for a Wikipedia page on the Presidential term of a United States President. I do however agree that creating a few spinoffs of other topics, as suggested above with a previous user. Another possible way to trim the content down to take out the fat in a sense, would be to have more events mentioned here linked to articles that go more in-depth about the issue or event. This would trim the article since there are some issues, positions and events that should be given a "Cliffnotes-esque" summary or background, which would be then followed by a link to another article for reference and further explanation. MyJunoBaldwin (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Splitting by time just creates a lot of overlap and confusion. Better to expand specific sub articles and work on summarising more on this page.Mozzie (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brian Ballard

In the third paragraph of the subsection role of lobbyists, in the ethics section, Brian Ballard is described as a Turkish-Azerbaijani shipping magnate, but the name is linked to an article about a former Olympic sport-shooter. Can't fix because the article is locked. Alienmandosaur (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Trimming environment section

The environment section is not only one of the largest, but one that doesn't merit the relative size in this article that the economy section would. I would like some talk page support for the trimming that I made earlier, which was reverted. I'm happy to consider any alternatives or changes. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You removed academic analysis, and summary-style content of the administration's policies. Some of the content was specifically approved in a RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this meat-axe approach which removes some good academic studies. If there are more incremental or targeted changes, I think those might be considered. Neutrality^talk 14:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Charlottesville rally

I was wondering about the "White nationalists and Charlottesville rally" section. There has been some disagreement about the title in the past:

1. 13 August 2017 –> "Race relations" changed to "White supremacy"
2. 27 September 2017 –> "Charlottesville Rally"
3. 27 September 2017 –> "Charlottesville Rally and White Supremacy"
4. 27 September 2017 –> "White supremacy and Charlottesville rally"
5. 27 September 2017 –> "Comments about white supremacy and Charlottesville rally"
6. 27 September 2017 –> "White nationalists and Charlottesville rally" – apparently because of this discussion
7. 11 August 2018 -> Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville
8. 11 August 2018 -> White nationalists and Charlottesville rally

I was unable to find all changes (diffs) to this section, but the content has remained virtually same for all these years.

a) Even though the first diff says "neo-Nazis, white supremacists", that seems to misrepresent the source, which says "did not mention white nationalists and the alt-right movement" (referring to press conference) or "did not explicitly mention the white nationalist origins of the conflict" (referring to tweet).

Could this

Trump did not expressly mention Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or the alt-right movement in his remarks on August 13, but the following day (August 14) he did denounce white supremacists. He condemned "the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups".

be changed to something like this:

Trump did not expressly mention white nationalists or the alt-right movement in his remarks on August 13, but the following day he condemned "the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups".

References

b) Could the title be changed to "Charlottesville rally" or "Charlottesville rally comments"? Or is there a specific reason to single out white nationalists? One editor has claimed (see diff #8) that changing the title is "tendentious", but that claim appears to be baseless. Politrukki (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Court Nominations

The beginning of Justice Gorsuch's paragraph says "Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch...." The beginning of Justice Barrett's paragraph says "Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett...." The beginning of Justice Kavanaugh's paragraph says "Trump nominated Kavanaugh...." I think we should add "Brett" before "Kavanaugh" to keep the same format. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Soleimani Killing

Currently, Soleimani's killing is mentioned only in the lede. I think we should add a mention in the Foreign Policy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrytzkalmyr (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Page size

This article has 508,585 bytes of markup; that's far too large. The page should be hevily trimmed and/ or split into several parts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Election Integrity

The Election Integrity section needs content about Trump's public statements and legal challenges about the 2020 presidential election. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2020

87.15.161.59 (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

On November 25, 2020, President Trump granted the presidential pardon at general Michael Flynn

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There is only a short list of pardons in this article. The full list is at List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump RudolfRed (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the proposed addition is enough, but I believe the pardon should be added. It has received a lot of media coverage and is quite controversial. I do support waiting for some time to see how the situation plays out, though (more pardons, not much media coverage, etc). Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed rename of "Opioid epidemic"

I feel the title of this subsection should be renamed to "substance abuse", since there is also a methamphetamine epidemic, an alcoholism epidemic, etc. Alcoholism in America costs aboout as many lives and as much money as opioids. There are numerous reports indicating a surge in methamphetamine and alcohol consumption, for example:

https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2019/11/13/western-maryland-battles-opioid-crisis-meth-surging

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/07/29/745061185/seizures-of-methamphetamine-are-surging-in-the-u-s

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28928305/

I would appreciate the input of other users here. Hunan201p (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

But isn't the content in that section *specifically* about the administration's response to the opioid epidemic? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. But my point is that the opioid epidemic is just one in a myriad of substance abuse crises that are affecting the United States, and so it seems awfully narrow-scope to focus on that alone. The cumulative casualties of alcohol and other drug abuse greatly outweigh the opioid epidemic deaths. So I propose re-naming "Opioid epidemic" and including info about the meth, alcohol, and wasp dope trends that also worsened under Trump's term. Hunan201p (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The references you included don't mention the Trump administration. The opioid epidemic has been an important issue during the Trump administration. Are there any sources that talk about the Trump administration's impact on methamphetamine or alcohol use in the country? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Abraham Accords

@Onetwothreeip: Should Abraham Accords be removed from the lead section or added to the article body? I prefer adding it to the body as it has been noted as one of Trump's most significant foreign policy achievements, but either way would be superior to the status quo. The lead section summarizes the article. If something is not significant enough for the article, it cannot be significant enough for its lead section. feminist (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind using the phrase but probably shouldn't belong in the lead section. It likely merits some mention in the body, but not much. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of my edit? A {{main article}} hatnote is the way to mention (and more importantly, link) "Abraham Accords" without using too much text. I have trimmed some details on the Israel-UAE deal, because as you said it doesn't merit too much mention in the body. Feel free to remove the phrase "Abraham Accords" from the lead, but it seems to be the shortest way to mention "normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states", so I would lean towards keeping it. Basically the whole article needs trimming and summarizing. feminist (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Not clear this is significant for Trump presidency. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that contribution belongs on an article to do with Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Leaving this out of the article entirely is certainly an option as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This is stupid. What is described as "one of his main foreign policy accomplishments" and "the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term" is not significant enough within the context of his presidency? feminist (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I stopped reading at "stupid". Try a more substantive comment if you wish your view to be considered. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Something described as "one of his main foreign policy accomplishments" and "the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term" is clearly significant in the context of the Trump presidency. feminist (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

More: "Trump’s First Unambiguous Diplomatic Success", "The deal gave Mr. Trump a much-welcomed breakthrough". WP:RS clearly describe the Israel–UAE deal as significant in the context of the Trump presidency. Note that my edit already trimmed some of the details of the agreement, but what is currently in the article should stay. feminist (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If Specifico will now stop reading whenever someone uses language like "stupid" in a discussion on Donald Trump articles, they won't be reading many more such discussions! I do think your characterisation was completely unjustified though.

I don't regard the Foreign Policy or New York Times sources as sufficient, but the AP News and Vox.com sources are. We need more information on what exactly Trump did to write about this though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my "stupid" comment was directed towards the view that the normalization agreements were not significant, and not directed towards any particular editor. I apologize if it came off that way. feminist (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Anti-trump bias

I can't help but notice this whole article is nothing but bashing our president. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to present information in a neutral and non biased manner? --2607:FEA8:2C5F:FBA5:2109:D9AA:268C:F510 (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

One thing Wikipedia is is global. I am not American, so he's not my president. Rather than condemning of the whole article in such a sweeping way, please recognise that this is naturally an article watched by a lot of people, and what is in the article is well sourced and has been agreed to by the community over several years. If you can identify a specific part of the article where you believe policies have not been followed, please do so and explain why. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's fair to admit that there are several good faith competent editors who are motivated to add negative news about Trump to Wikipedia. The negative content added is almost always accurate, and usually but not always reflects reality and reliable sources (there's just more negative than positive news about Trump). Much of this content could be written in a way that is more neutral and free from bias. Is there any content in particular that you feel is especially biased? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I share the view of the original post. An example of bias is foreign policy with North Korea. The article mentions that "they met three times", in a neutral tone as undisputed fact, then mentions that talks broke down since 2019, completely depreciating the event (both here and on his personal article). Instead, the article could say that by doing so "he restored dialogue with North Korea and initiated a détente". Overall, the outcome of their relationship was widely praised and a positive surprise to many. Modjo Rojo (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Modjo Rojo: Thank you for being specific. Dialogue wasn't restored in any sense. What do you mean by detente? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we are going to have some issues agreeing if you cannot at least acknowledge that, after decades of threats and hostile exchanges, the two heads of state accepted to meet and discuss about denuclearization. Two summits were held for that purpose. Also, that unprecedented event took place. That is dialogue. I would then refer you to the concept of détente in any political science review about international relations. A détente refers to a somewhat decrease of tensions in bi or multi-lateral relations. What happened since July 2018 between Trump and Kim is a textbook example of a détente, as this very article mentions. Modjo Rojo (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources for any of that? All I’ve seen in RS is criticism of Trump for being played by Kim because of his desire for a photo op. Nothing was gained, North Korean missile programs continue, but Kim got kudos of a meeting of “equals”. Detente? Not seen it in the RS. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to second the original poster's opinion on this topic. Sadly, I have seen that little has been done to follow Wikipedia NPOV policy in this article. Wikipedia, and the administration and editors quite frequently are not following their own policy, unless the bias is against their opinion. Maybe now is the time to find an non-bias encyclopedia webpage out there. Such a shame because your always the top in search results. 76.76.91.56 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought the same. This article reads as a liberal rag and is protected against vandalism. Wiki has lost my support through gross negligence and pushing opinions rather than facts. TyGuy226 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Leadership Style section

While I enjoyed reading this section (I like the opener “Trump's own staffers, subordinates, and allies frequently characterized Trump as infantile.”!) I think it probably is too one sided. It is unremittingly critical and that opener, while it made me smile, sets the tone of a hatchet job rather than an encyclopaedia. Don’t get me wrong - there’s a lot to criticise and that undoubtedly is out there in the media so NPOV means it definitely necessary to be covered. However, I would suggest that the opening paragraph should be about why his leadership style has attracted 47% of the vote and, indeed, fanatical support in some quarters. I’m not saying remove any of the existing material but arguably how he has attracted this support is arguably the most important feature of his leadership style. The primal nature of the attraction of his leadership style is discussed in this article by Prof Dan P. McAdams and how his leadership style is perceived among supporters is covered in this YouGov piece. I think the opening paragraph should cover these types of issues before going into criticism. Views? DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The section does not explain how Trump, despite opposition from the Republican establishment and all the negatives, built a mass following, won the 2016 nomination and election, increased his vote in the 2020 election and is a serious contender for the 2024 election. Instead it promotes the Democratic narrative that he got there by a fluke or Russian intervention or the electoral college, uneducated angry white men, Jill Stein and Bernie bros. TFD (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That’s not true. JillStein, ‘Bernie bros’, uneducated angry white men etc. are net mentioned in this section. There are two very small mentions of Russia but not putting that forward as an explanation for his victory. I don’t think it’s the job of this section to explain all those things you would like explained as I doubt that there is RS supporting the contention that they are all about his ‘leadership style’. You seem to want to turn the section into hagiography. DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No, because the section is about his leadership style, not why he won. But anyone reading the section would have no idea why he won, since infantilism is rarely a winning strategy for adults, reinforcing the view that it was his leadership style that got him there. TFD (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Which was my original point. Your post muddied that water with extraneous Trumpian grievances. Infantilism, dishonesty, disrespect for the rule of law, Twitter etc are all well documented and widely discussed aspects of his leadership style and must be include for NPOV. The missing components are that a significant part of his electoral successes are derived from the issues covered in the two linked to articles:

(1) “his uncanny ability to channel primal dominance. Like the alpha male of a chimpanzee colony, Trump leads (and inspires) through intimidation, bluster, and threat, and through the establishment of short-term, opportunistic relationships with other high-status agents. Whereas domain-specific expertise confers status in the prestige paradigm, dominant leaders derogate expertise in order to establish a direct, authoritarian connection to their constituency. Trump's leadership style derives readily from his personality makeup, which entails a combustible temperament mixture of high extraversion and low agreeableness”. McAdams.

(2) “On Trump’s leadership, 91 percent of Republicans say he is a strong leader and 8 percent say he is a weak one. Nearly nine in 10 Democrats evaluate Trump’s leadership as weak but a greater share of Democrats say Trump is a strong leader (11%) when compared with the number of Republicans who say the same about Biden (6%)... Chat users who say Trump is a strong leader cite "he says what he wants" (30%), suggesting that he does not pander and merely says what others may want to hear. Echoing this, another 15 percent say he is "authoritative" and use words such as “decisive” and “gets things done” to describe his strengths. One user wrote that “[Trump is] confident, doesn’t back down,” echoing what six percent of users say makes him such a strong leader. But not everyone thinks that Trump’s confidence translates to effective leadership. ‘He makes bold statements and takes erratic actions to try to look strong but fails to follow through to accomplish anything. When faced with serious decisions he ignores the problem, says it is someone else’s problem, or simply denies responsibility.’”. YouGov.

DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This section contains no fact or basis, just more opinions. WTF wiki TyGuy226 (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Loss of 2020 Election

Trump has not lost the 2020 Election, as the electoral college has not voted yet. He is projected to lose the electoral college, but has not lost yet. This article should use language saying trump is projected to lose rather than has lost, to reflect the reality of the American presidential election system. I think this goes for other articles related to the 2020 presidential elections. Again, just because he is projected to lose, and it is highly likely he will lose the electoral college vote, this has not happened yet.Alienmandosaur (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. Reliable sources refer to Donald Trump as having lost the election and to Joe Biden as having won the election and being the president-elect of the United States of America. Therefore, Wikipedia says this as well. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The funny thing is you liberal hacks that have defecated all over this page will be seeing a lot more of him these next 4 years😊 TyGuy226 (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

january 20 2017-January 20 2021

2603:8080:700:336B:B977:424D:632F:317F (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: When the day comes (January 20 2021), then it will be changed! Happy editing. KRtau16 (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Article has end date listed as January 20, 2024

Considering Joe Biden is being sworn in on January 20, 2020, I don't think that date is accurate.

Should be a pretty simple fix. Joshverd (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done (2021). Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Congressional rebuke

I do not think this should have been removed. It can appear in more than one article. I see no consensus to remove this. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a diff so we can see what you are talking about without having to go hunting for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it can appear in more than one article, except this article only mention the War in Afghanistan in passing and only talks events about the War in Syria that occurred after the rebuke. Therefore, this article lacks the context needed for the reader to fully understand that resolution. Because this article is WP:TOOBIG, I thought moving the statement to another article (that covered both wars yet didn't include this statement prior) was a better alternative. Mottezen (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, it's too much detail for this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"finale fusioso"

2021 United States Capitol protests

I'm no native speaker - how + where integrate this in(to?) the article ?

thanks in advance, --Präziser (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Why Independent Seat vote in House of Representatives is not part of impeachment on January 13, 2021?

Why Independent Seat vote in House of Representatives is not part of impeachment on January 13, 2021?

Broadcast of event by the House of Representatives showed votes coming in from Republican and Democrats but no votes tallied from Independent seats. Why is this?--104.157.45.164 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There are no independents in the House of Representatives in the 117th Congress. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Too much detail

I recently removed some content from the article which was too excessive for this article, mostly events tenuously related to the administration and too much detail about March 2020. The reductions should be restored. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph does not flow

In the first paragraph, it first talks about the 2016 presidential election, then about Trump's misleading statements, and finally about the 2020 presidential election. I think the misleading statements sentence should be moved to its own paragraph, or to another paragraph if that is seen as the better option. I wanted to establish a consensus before editing. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Not only does it not flow, it also appears to have been written by CNN. While most of the information is accurately true, there are many disputed things contained within. Also, falsities by omission are still falsities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgibby11 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a major development with significant future implications

This edit should be restored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=1001991182&oldid=1001964877

soibangla (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that this should be included. It is a few sentences that, as you note, are about a major development with significant future implications. --Neutrality^talk 20:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is far too much for something relatively unimportant about the Trump administration. Something like this would be suitable for the article about environmental policy, but this is not something that is being remembered as part of the administration overall. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. One of the primary objectives of the Trump presidency was to dismantle the “regulatory state,” particularly at EPA to advance the Trump prioritization of fossil fuels. The edit shows that not only did that specific goal fail, their broader dismantling effort was overwhelmingly rejected by courts. I will restrain myself from explaining why you do not understand this or may act as though you don’t. soibangla (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Onetwothreeip pretty much covers it well. Basically a nothing burger. Certainly not due for a top level article like this. PackMecEng (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this belongs. It fits in with existing text about the Clean Power Plan rollback efforts (update: actually, it looks like a lot of content on the CPP has been scrubbed from the article in the last few weeks), and has longterm encyclopedic value in that it adds some finality to the administration's environmental policy rollbacks. Of course, like any text, it can be trimmed and made more concise. As it stands, the article makes no mention of the fact that the Trump administration sought to rollback the Clean Power Plan, which was the Obama administration's key environmental regulation. That's just not acceptable. If only 5 things should be listed in the 'Environment' section, the attempted rollbacks of the CPP should be in that top 5. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur that the content, in some form, should be included. I would say that anti-environmental actions are one of the top traits of the Trump administration from the very beginning. This was a significant attempt in that vein. starship.paint (exalt) 14:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, but not every anti-environmental action belongs here. There are few actions which are especially notable themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you are characterizing efforts to increase our fossil fuel production as "anti-environmental action" demonstrates bias and lack of neutrality in the language used to describe President Trump's actions, and such language does not belong in this or any other article. Vinny Gambino (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)